Right to food cannot be overlooked as the right to life-a critical

Food is a most essential good and important basic need of a human being for survival. Right to food is a basic human right which is not an option or mere thing of charity but it is the responsibility of the state to ensure Right to food to all its citizens, and if the state or its government is unable to ensure it then it is a gross violation of human rights of the citizens. According to the United Nations Human rights the four key elements of the right to food are:
• Availability: Food should be obtainable from natural resources, either through the production of food, by cultivating land or animal husbandry, or through other ways like fishing, hunting or gathering. Food should be on sale in markets and shops.
• Accessibility: Food must be affordable. Individuals should be able to have an adequate diet without compromising on other basic needs, such as school fees, medicines or rent. Food should be accessible to the physically vulnerable, including children, sick people, people with disabilities and the elderly. Food must also be available to people in remote areas, to victims of armed conflicts or natural disasters, and to prisoners.
• Adequacy: Food must satisfy dietary needs, taking into account a person’s age, living conditions, health, occupation, sex, etc. Food should be safe for human consumption and free from adverse substances.
• Sustainability: Food should be accessible for both present and future generations.
The human right to adequate food is crucial to the enjoyment of all rights, including:
• The right to health: When a pregnant woman is denied access to nutritious food, for example, she and her baby can be malnourished, even if she receives prenatal care.
• The right to life: When people are not able to feed themselves and face malnutrition and resulting illnesses or death by starvation, their right to life is at stake.
• The right to water: Without safe water for drinking, food preparation, and household hygiene, the right to food is out of reach.
• The right to adequate housing: When a house lacks basic amenities, such as for cooking or storing food, the right to adequate food of its residents may be undermined. Also, when the cost of housing is too high, people may have less money to spend on food.
• The right to education: Hunger and malnutrition impair children’s learning abilities, and may force them to drop out of school, thus undermining their enjoyment of the right to education. People need to know how to maintain a healthy diet and have the skills and capacity to produce or obtain food. (OHCHR AND THE RIGHT TO FOOD) nhttps://www.ohchr.org/en/food
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, millions of low-income people around the globe are facing the problem of food security. The current challenge is ensuring that people are not dying of hunger. In light of current situations, a question may arise whether people have “right to food” under the legal mechanism of Bangladesh.
The necessity of ensuring food for everyone is now realized, especially after the Second World War. In 1948, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognized the right to food as the criterion of “standard living”. As Article 25 provides, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food”. Since then, in the second half of the 20th Century, this right has held a place in the constitutions of many newly created countries. This is also included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. Article 11.1 provides-“the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food” and “the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger”. Hence, the Convention creates an obligation for its member states to ensure the right to food for their citizens. As Bangladesh is a member state (ratified the Convention on 6 September 2000) of this Convention, it should comply with the aforesaid Article. Moreover, Article 25 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh provides that the State has to respect international law and principles. Ensuring the right to food is an international and constitutional obligation for Bangladesh.
However, the constitution of Bangladesh separately articulated provisions related to food. But it has not enumerated the provision of the necessity of food as a right of people but as a duty of the state. The provision related to the necessity of food is included in the chapter of the fundamental principles of state policy not within the chapter of fundamental rights. Article 15 is the provision of fundamental necessities that provides; “It shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to attain, through planned economic growth, a constant increase of productive forces and a steady improvement in the material and cultural standard of living of the people, in order to secure to its citizens-
• the provision of the fundamental necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care.
Thus, the Constitution of Bangladesh considered this socio-economic right just as a duty of the state which is not judicially enforceable. The Constitution does not include the right to food as a right in the part of the fundamental rights, maybe because of the state’s economic instability at the time of framing it. However, the current economic condition is much better than the year when the constitution was framed. Thus, the state may afford the right to food as a fundamental right. By the time some other socio-economic rights have been upheld by the apex court of Bangladesh. Supreme Court of Bangladesh entertained the socio-economic right in the case of ‘Dr. Mohiuddin farooq vs Bangladesh and others’, and also, in the case of ‘Ain o Salish Kendra vs. Government of Bangladesh’.
It can be argued that since the Constitution of Bangladesh considers the right to life as a right through Article 32, the right to food is a part of the right to life as well. Article 32 provides: “no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”. This Article has a similarity with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which is also within the part of the directive principles. The said Article provides- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. India also enshrined the food-related provision in Article 47 which is within the part of the directive principles of its Constitution. The Constitution of India also made that provision non-justiciable by Article 37 that provides: “The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws”. Hence, Bangladesh and India are on the same footing from the end of constitutional duty and non-enforceability of socio-economic rights by judicial proceeding. But, judicial interpretation of the Indian Supreme Court upheld that right to food is a part of the right to life in the prominent case of Kishen Pattnayak & another vs. State of Orissa. India is now one step ahead of Bangladesh by adaptation of laws related to the right to food namely the National Aspect of Food Security Act, 2013. Not only India some other compatible countries with Bangladesh adopted laws related to the right to food including Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, etc. as referred to in the report of Bangladesh Law Commission.
Before going to an argument regarding whether the State is responsible for providing food to people or not, we need to focus on government current actions regarding it. The Government is striving to provide food to the people who are in crisis. Honorable Prime Minister said, “the government will obtain 21 lakh metric tons of food which will be used for the purpose of food security under current situations”. The government may face some challenges in activities related to ensuring food safety because of the absence of legislation related to it. Numbers of laws related to the right to food are in force but does not cover all related issues of right to food within their provisions. This is found as lacuna by the law commission of Bangladesh”.
There is a misconception about the right to food is that; the Government has an obligation to provide food to everyone who wants it. The view can be corrected from the special Rapporteur on the Right to Food 2012 provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation that, “the right to food is not a right to a minimum ration of calories, proteins, and other specific nutrients, or a right to be fed. It is about being guaranteed the right to feed oneself, which requires not only that food is available – that the ratio of production to the population is sufficient – but also that it is accessible – i.e., that each household either has the means to produce or buy its own food. However, if individuals are deprived of access to food for reasons beyond their control, for instance, because of an armed conflict, natural disaster or because they are in detention, recognition of the right to life obliges States to provide them with sufficient food for their survival”. It is clear from the statement that the right to food can be claimed by those who or provided to them who – are in need of food because of the inability to buy and the situation is beyond their control. Hence, every citizen of the country is not entitled to food from the government but those who are in need.
Providing food during a crisis is not a new job for the government since we usually witness the problem at the time of natural disasters. In such a disaster, the government plays a vital role maybe because of repeatedly facing the same problem. Currently probable food crises may appear with a different face than other forms of crises. Unlike natural disasters, it may not push all people in the food crisis situation at once in the same area because of the different economic status of people. Thus, the government has to fix which groups of people are in actual crisis of food. Another problem may arise if a family collects more ration than allotted for each family. For organized distributions, if we would have a ration card policy like India then the government might distribute the food more easily than now.
In Bangladesh, a number of laws including constitutions provided provisions related to food. But these laws are not sufficiently articulated provisions for the right to food. The report of Bangladesh Law Commission enlisted more than 30 existing laws related to food but found insufficient provisions for right to food; as a result, the Commission suggested a new law to overcome the lacuna[7]. Hence, Bangladesh requires an Act to ensure the food and nutritional security for its citizens especially, for those who are in a crisis of food for the situations beyond their control.
The recognition of the right to food as a justiciable right at the national level is gaining ground as many countries now explicitly recognizes right to food in their constitutions. Currently eleven countries such as Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, Nicaragua, and South Africa – explicitly provide a constitutional right to adequate food for all persons. Other countries recognize a more limited right to food in their constitutions. They either restrict the populations that can rely on the right, like the young, sick, or imprisoned, or by refer to the right as a mere directive principle to guide legislators and national policy. For example, Article of the Constitution of Costa Rica of 1949 provides that the State shall provide food and clothing for indigent pupils, according to the law. Article 47 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to food in the directive principles part of the constitution. South Africa’s constitution of 1996 explicitly addresses justiciable social and economic rights, including rights to healthcare, social security, social assistance, water, and food. Article 27 of the South African constitution provides the right to access “sufficient food and water.” The constitution requires the state to take reasonable legislative measures to “achieve the progressive realization . . . of these rights.” Emphasizing the importance of childhood nutrition, the constitution guarantees every child the right to “basic nutrition.” To better interpret these socioeconomic rights, South African courts have looked beyond national laws and incorporated international law. In 2008, Ecuador includes the Right to Food in its Constitution stating that the right to food is “the right to have unrestricted and permanent access to sufficient and nutritious food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, for a healthy and dignified life”. Bolivia inserted the right to food in Article 16 of its Constitution in 2009. Brazil has included the right to food in its constitution in 2010.
A constitutional recognition of the right to food provides the strongest possible basis of such right since all laws and policies must conform to the constitutional provisions. Including the right to food in the constitution implies that this right cannot be easily withdrawn ensuring greater permanency than ordinary laws. Direct recognition has the advantage of avoiding the uncertainty of judicial interpretation since the right is clearly spelled out. The insertion of the right to food in the constitution of countries improves accountability since the constitutional provisions limit the actions and policies of all branches of the government. The insertion of the right to food into the constitution is thus not of mere symbolic significance. It imposes on all branches of the State to take measures to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food by adopting adequate laws, and by implementing policies and programs aimed at the progressive realization of the right to food. At the same time, constitutional recognition is an important step in empowering people to realize their right to food as they can use it to demand those adequate policies and laws which establish an enabling environment for them to realize their right to food.
There are many laws and policies on food security and safe food in Bangladesh. Recently Bangladesh has enacted the Safe Food Act, 2013 in order to ensure right to have safe food for protection of human life and health through control by coordination in food production, import, processing, storage, supply, sale and distribution. This Act establishes an institutional mechanism called ‘Bangladesh Safe Food Authority’ for this purpose. The Act defines safe food and adulterated food. The Act also defines composition, power and function of the Authority. Thus, the main purpose of this Act is to ensure right to safe food, but not right to food as such. According to section 13 of the Act, the main functions of the ‘Authority’ are the following:
– To assist concerned agencies or institutions to define safety aspects of foods and to determine the standard and quality of food;
– To formulate guidelines for determining standard and quality of foods;
– To update standard and quality of foods under the existing laws;
– To assist the concerned agencies to determine the acceptable level of radiation in food;
– To formulate policy for safe food management and guideline for safe food accreditation;
– To formulate policy on safe food and nutrition
– To coordinate among different government, non-governmental agencies and international organizations concerned about ensuring quality of food;
– To create public awareness about quality of safe food.
This Act also prohibits use of harmful substances in food, use of radiated substances, production and marketing of adulterated food, use of food additives, and control of consumption of genetically modified food.
Right to safe water is an important element of the right to food. The Bangladesh Water Act, 2013 provides for coordinated development, management, exploration, distribution, use, and protection of water resources. It specifically states that all rights relating to water in superjacent, subsoil, sea water, rain water and water of atmosphere will be exercised by the State on behalf of the people. The Act establishes right to have safe water. The 2005 Pure Food (Amendment) Act makes provision for greater vigilance against food fraudulence. The Consumer’s Rights Protection Act, 2009 aims to establish institutional mechanisms and for punishment for certain offences. Vitamin-A enriched edible Oil Act, 2013 aims to ensure availability of the Vitamin-A enriched edible Oil for all. Apart from laws, Bangladesh has formulated several policies on food security. The Food Policy of 1988 aims to encourage the farmers in producing more food grains by purchasing their products at a fair/subsidized price. According to Poverty Reduction Strategy, food security is the core element in the struggle against poverty). The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of 2005 of Bangladesh puts emphasis on human development of the poor for raising their capacity through education, health, nutrition, and social interventions. The National Food Policy (NFP) in 2006 aims at to ensure dependable and sustained food security for all, at all times. Its objectives are to: (i) ensure the adequate and stable supply of safe and nutritious food; (ii) enhance the purchasing 30 power of the people for increased accessibility; and (iii) ensure adequate nutrition for all (particularly for women and children). The National Food Policy Plan of Action (2008-2015) identifies responsible actors (government and non-government) and suggests a set of policy targets and indicators for monitoring progress. Despite the government’s commitment to fight hunger, according to UN World Food Programme, its policies are ineffective due to limited distribution of nutritional supplements, inadequate growth monitoring and lack of skilled personnel. under the Policy and Action Plan. However, the above mentioned laws and policies are not based on the right-based approach and they are mainly concerned with the food security which is premised on basic need approach. But this legal and policy framework can be guideline for formulating a comprehensive law on right to food in Bangladesh given its international and constitutional obligation.

According to the doctrine of legitimate expectation which has been upheld by the judiciary several times and it implies that, owing to some consistent practice in the past or an explicit commitment made by the authority concerned, a person should have a legitimate expectation[i] of being handled in a certain way by administrative authorities, and if the government or its authorities are not willing or are unable to fulfill the demand of the people in terms of food or any other legitimate expectation of the people then we can say that the government is breaching the legitimate expectations of the peoples.

However, India faces a crucial crisis in terms of hunger and has been ranked 94 out of 107 countries in the Global Hunger Index 2020 is placed in the serious hunger category with a score of 27.2, and the most surprising fact is that only 13 countries face hunger worse than India, including countries like Rwanda (97), Nigeria (98), Afghanistan (99), Liberia (102), Mozambique (103) and Chad (107) among others and India features behind Nepal (73), Pakistan (88), Bangladesh(75) and Indonesia(70) among others. According to the report 14 per cent of India’s total population is still undernourished.

Right To Food Under Different International Declarations
Universal Declaration on Human Rights [ii]
Right to food was recognized as a right in the year 1948 in the UDHR and the article 25 of the UDHR reads as: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also incorporated Right to food under article 11 and all the signatories including India agreed to take steps to ensure right to food to all. [iii]

Right to Food for all guidelines were adopted by the FAO council in the year 2004.

In 2009, in the Declaration of the world food summit on food security states reiterated their commitments in ensuring right to adequate food for all.
There are plethora of other declarations and guidelines which have been adopted by various national and international organizations to provide adequate amount of food for all the people without any discrimination.

Right To Food Under the Constitution of India
The constitution of India nowhere explicitly mentions about the right to food but there are certain provisions in the constitution which implies that the framers of the constitution desired to ensure food for all.

Right to life (Article 21)
Article 21 of the Indian constitution imposes a duty on the state to protect the life of the citizens as well as non-citizens of India. The article 21 of the constitution provides for right to life and this right doesn’t mean mere physical existence but it means right to live with human dignity and respect which means having access to all those necessities which are important for living a healthy, humane and dignified human life, and this has been explicitily implied through different judgments of the Supreme Court of India.

So, it explicitly means that Right to Food is a Fundamental right under article 21 of the Indian Constitution as in the landmark judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [iv] the Supreme Court while delivering the judgement stated: Right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than animal instinct and includes the right to live with human dignity, it would include all these aspects which would make life meaningful, complete and living.

Also in the case of Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [v] the Supreme Court stated that basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to the three – food, clothing and shelter.

The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. there are several other cases in which the Supreme Court has reiterated that Right to Life doesn’t mean just physical existence but it cover all other aspects which a human needs to live.

Directive Principles Of the State Policy- Article 39(a) and Article 47
Article 39(a) of the Indian Constitution reads as:
The State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood

Whereas Article 47 reads as:
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs, which are injurious to health.

Though Directive Principles under Part IV of the Constitution were not made legally justifiable, because at that time India did not have sufficient resources to fulfill them, but article 37 under Part IV also reads as : The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.. So it means that the state can apply these provisions and make laws upon the subjects which fall under the Part IV and the objective of DPSP is to better the lifestyle, livelihood and economic conditions of society so that the people living in the society can live a healthy and prosperous life.

Cases Related to Right to Food
Kishan Patnaik v. State of Odisha [vi]
In this case the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of India highlighting the status of starving people in the Kalahandi part of Odisha who even sold their children to fulfill the demand of hunger, though the apex court did not mention about the right to food as a fundamental right but took cognizance into it and directed the state government to address the serious issue of starvation.

Chameli Devi v. State of U.P [vii]
It was held that everyone has the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services.

People united for civil liberties(PUCL) v. Union of India [viii]
This writ petition was filed on behalf of the people living in the territory of Rajasthan, the people were too poor and had not been getting any kind any required food relief or any other kind of relief obligatory by the Rajasthan famine Code of 1962, and due to the absence of adequate food for all the people were eating on a rotation basis which in general is also known as Rotation eating which means some people of the family will eat on one day and the remaining others on the other day. PUCL went to the court on the issue of RIGHT TO FOOD and the apex court passed an interim order that said that Right to food is enshrined under article 21 and the state cannot escape its duty to fulfill it.

Apart from these cases the National Human Rights Commission has also taken the view that the Right to free from Hunger, i.e. the Right to adequate food is a part of fundamental rights[ix]. Article 21 of the constitution of India should be read in connection to article 39(a) and article 47 of the Indian constitution and this argument was based on the National Human Rights Commission’s interpretation of the right to food.

In the same statement, the Commission clearly stated that: there is a fundamental right to be free from hunger, also the apex court of the country has reinterpreted it several times in many cases related to article 21 and gave orders which directly or indirectly favored Right to Food and Right to food has been declared to be a constitutional right and government is constantly reminded of its duty which they cannot escape it and it is also said that: Hunger is something which is more than mere missing a meal so the government should be held accountable in case people don’t get adequate food for their livelihood as discussed and observed by the Supreme Court.